Power Meters?

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

--
- Frank Krygowski
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCP8ijGF4pw

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

Frank, how do you suppose you can improve if there's no room for improvement? Why isn't the Tour de France a 190 way tie?

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:23:08 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use..

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point..
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html


Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
This whole thing started with power meters didn't it? Everyone has a certain maximum power output beyond which they absolutely CANNOT improve. Talking about efficiency and muscle output is simply nonsensical. Power in and power out minus efficiency factor hits a brick wall when you reach your physical limitations.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:17:29 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people..
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.
Frank, how do you suppose you can improve if there's no room for improvement? Why isn't the Tour de France a 190 way tie?
Pro cyclists are those people who discovered that they had the muscle and energy storage capacity to be good at the sport. If they hadn't been they would have chosen something else like say a lawyer that thinks that Portland was a "mostly peaceful demonstration". Physical abilities are innate and while you can improve your performance it is only to your genetically endowed abilities. This is why I think that sports riders buying power meters is foolishness. It is a belief that they can become like their heroes and that just isn't the case. After the age of about 30, even if you had the extraordinary physical abilities, if you hadn't exercised them before that they are GONE never to ever return. Why would you suppose that people that buy power meters find that so unacceptable?

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:20:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:23:08 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html


Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
This whole thing started with power meters didn't it? Everyone has a certain maximum power output beyond which they absolutely CANNOT improve. Talking about efficiency and muscle output is simply nonsensical. Power in and power out minus efficiency factor hits a brick wall when you reach your physical limitations.

I can attest that calories burned are not just exercise. One does get more efficient and you clearly burn less calories by being more efficient. I remember once back in about 1990 when I was running 60-75 miles per week. One week I finished and I had 88 miles on the books. I then went out later in the afternoon to run 3 more miles so I could say I legitimately ran a 90 mile week. That particular week I gained about 2 pounds when done. I am not sure I actually eat any less today on days with I walk 6 miles and ride my bike 20-30. Back then a normal days run of 11 miles would have taken me about 85-88 miles going 7:35-8:10 minutes per mile. Now if I get going and run a 10:45 mile pace my heart rate just ups pretty quick for my age. Indicating I am much less efficient and burning more calories because of it. I have similar responses riding success weeks of 300-360 miles. I don't suddenly drop weight and I don't eat a more or what seems much more
Deacon Mark

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:35:42 AM UTC-7, Mark cleary wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:20:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:23:08 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry..

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html


Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
This whole thing started with power meters didn't it? Everyone has a certain maximum power output beyond which they absolutely CANNOT improve. Talking about efficiency and muscle output is simply nonsensical. Power in and power out minus efficiency factor hits a brick wall when you reach your physical limitations.
I can attest that calories burned are not just exercise. One does get more efficient and you clearly burn less calories by being more efficient. I remember once back in about 1990 when I was running 60-75 miles per week. One week I finished and I had 88 miles on the books. I then went out later in the afternoon to run 3 more miles so I could say I legitimately ran a 90 mile week. That particular week I gained about 2 pounds when done. I am not sure I actually eat any less today on days with I walk 6 miles and ride my bike 20-30. Back then a normal days run of 11 miles would have taken me about 85-88 miles going 7:35-8:10 minutes per mile. Now if I get going and run a 10:45 mile pace my heart rate just ups pretty quick for my age. Indicating I am much less efficient and burning more calories because of it. I have similar responses riding success weeks of 300-360 miles. I don't suddenly drop weight and I don't eat a more or what seems much more
Deacon Mark
I am not a particularly large eater though sometimes I eat my fill. My wife tends towards junk food and I towards healthier foods, not by any special attempt but because it is my preference. Maybe that garbage at the Chow Hall made as much of an impression as my mother. But my weight remains between 180 and 190 depending on how much riding I do. Before my injury it was a constant 210.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e** My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person.* It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one.* They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less).* The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article).* But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard."* ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure.* I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages.* Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. ”. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

The University of Cape Town Medical School recently studied eight fast
and eight average runners. The fast individuals averaged 33 minutes
for the 10K and 74 minutes for the half-marathon, while the average
harriers clocked about 40 minutes for the 10K and 94 minutes in the
half-marathon.

They found that both classes ran at about 90% maximum heart rate so
both runners were exerting the same effort but the faster people have
higher capacities (greater VO2maxs, loftier max heart rates).

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 14:23:03 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e** My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person.* It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one.* They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less).* The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article).* But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard."* ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure.* I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages.* Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. ”. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

In another post I gave some details of a study conducted by a S.
African school testing fast and slow runners which showed that while
both fast and slower runners both ran at about 90% maximum pulse rate
that the faster runners were faster :-) or in other words generated
more power for the same effort (heart rate) as the slower runners.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 4 May 2021 10:17:27 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/3/2021 12:20 AM, Mark J. wrote:
On 5/2/2021 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2021 11:24:14 -0700, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 5/2/2021 8:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Saturday, May 1, 2021 at 5:46:48 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:46:12 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 5/1/2021 7:42 AM, Mark cleary wrote:

snip

Well I think I have figured this out. I don't need a power
meter as I am in shape and know how to get in shape or stay in
shape. I don't race at all and I am getting slower although the
decline is something I can manage. What I have not managed is
my decline in running ability and with Runner's Dystonia it is
impossible at times for me to remember how to run.

A power meter would just be a statistical thing I look at and
ponder the data. That would be fun but really probably I would
rather spend the money on a Gibson L5 jazz guitar. So I will
put it on hold for the moment. I don't need the L5 either but
at least I can play it and have much fun. I doubt anyone here
has one to sell much less know what it is.............Frank set
me straight he had good points.

That's why people buy these kinds of things--they're fun for
them to
know this data. I would not want to tell anyone how they should
spend
their disposable income even if it's not a way I would want to
spend
$600 or so.

It's too bad that this technology has not come down in price to
a level
that represents the actual cost of implementing it, but that may
occur
at some time in the future.
:-) You can buy a pulse rate monitor for as little as $17 and it
will give a far more accurate indication of how hard you are working
than a power meter.

Well not really. Power is work over time, so a power meter will
tell you how much work you are doing. Sure, picking nits, but both
power and pulse rate are important. If you're producing 10 watts
at 170 BPM, you're on death's doorstep. If you're producing 2,000
watts at 170 BPM, you're a pro level sprinter.

-- Jay Beattie.
Your definition for 'Power" is a bit nebulas. Example: 1 watt = one
joule per second. Usually stated as "Power is the rate with respect to
time at which work is done".

But more important it doesn't give you any indication of what percent
of the power that you are capable of is being generated, which the
heart rate monitor does tell you.

By the way, you need to factor age into that equation as the older you
are the lower the maximum heart rate :-) 220 - 50 years = 170, 220 -
60 = 160, etc.

My definition of power as work over time is short hand for the
definition used in physics: https://tinyurl.com/yupbyh4e My point
was just that knowing one's pulse doesn't really say a lot in terms
of the amount of work being performed by that person. It gives you
a lot of other information and is a helpful training tool in other
ways, but a $17 heart rate monitor is not going to give you power
information or replace a power meter.

Everyone should get a Stages power meter even if they don't need
one. They're so cheap, you could use the arm as a stir stick, and
it would strengthen the economy.

-- Jay Beattie.

Besides, the purchase of the larger coffee cup, necessitated by that big
stir stick, will also strengthen the ceramic housewares industry.

Oh, and the 220-age formula is at best a wild guess for most humans;
ISTR the *typical* error size as 9-11 BPM (sometimes more, sometimes
less). The author of the paper from which the formula originated is
quoted as saying that the formula was never intended for medical use.

Mark J.

You might want to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...0-age_equation



Yes, I think that's the one I read.

The first reference to heart rate measurements seems have been
developed by Robinson in 1938. His data produced the equation
HRmax=212-0.77(age).
Subsequently it appears that everyone and his dog has come up with a
formula.

Including Fox, who published the 220-age in ?1971? if my quick scan is
correct (footnote 1 in the article). But his formula required no
multiplication or decimals which are, you know, "hard." ...and a legend
was born.


One study of HRmax data for 225 subjects (115 male, 110 female) for
ages 4 to 33 years show that 40% VOmax occurred at 63% of actual
maximum heart rate and at 40% of the calculated. 60% VOmax at 76%
actual and 6-% calculated and 90% VOmax at 95% actual and 90%
calculated.

"on average," I'm sure. I'd be astonished if every single one of those
subjects fit all those percentages. Which was rather my original point.
The margin of error in these estimates is almost always much larger than
the, um, press on the subject would lead you to believe, because people
vary a lot.



The known univariate prediction equations for maximal heart rate. seem
to range from a high of 226-age to a low of 189-0.56 age or in numbers
226-50=176 to 189-(60x,56) = 155.4 (220 - 60=160)

Lots of different formulas, but the variation in formulas may or may not
fit the variation in *people* which is the central problem.

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. ”. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.
I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.

Frank, how do you suppose you can improve if there's no room for improvement? Why isn't the Tour de France a 190 way tie?

Probably because there were only 176 riders in the TdeF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Tour_de_France
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:

On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
....

Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.

This, plus better aerodynamics. As you well know, because you commented
on it a while ago, I prefer to ride a bike in clothing that doesn’t look
like the latest ads in a sports magazine. But that doesn’t mean that I
don’t try to avoid avoidable air drag, by riding a road bike and using
the low positions on the drop bar.

I'm riding for fun, not as a matter of competition or to loose fat. Part
of that fun is getting around, though. Part of the fun, however, is
getting around, and that’s better if you can cycle faster.

Problem: The faster you ride, the more difficult it becomes to estimate
how much power you need for speed. I am no hunter/gatherer, I don't ride
that much. A quick back on the evelope calculation: last year I rode
less than 130 hours combined. When I was still working, it was about 220
hours - roughly one hour per work day.

I'm not that exited about power meters, but I see a use for these. One
of my sons has a pair, built into the pedals. I could try these, both on
my stationary bike (an old Tacx 1680) and indirectely, by him riding
closely behind me on one of my tours. The data gathered is quite
interesting. I'm going up gradients too fast and then I’m weakening when
it gets flat. This, even though I am well aware of the effect. Actually
I told beginners to avoid it, before. :-}


Anyway, I see a benefit for me, similar to the speedometer in our car.
That device is completely unnessesary, I rarely look at it. But so is
a lot of stuff on my road bike, lights, some bags, navigation device,
air pump, pedals, water bottle, some tools, a camera ... I could take
everything off my bike, except the gear and a single front brake and
would still be able to do my trips. I haven't used the pump in years,
could do without water for most of the year, etc.


A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen